ArtCenter Illustration alumni, Arthur Starling.
The posters used for this critique were not theatrical posters but rather ones seen on streaming. The “success” of each design was determined by its visual appeal and ability to intrigue Arthur. Though he had seen some of the films, he was able to speak upon the efficacy of each one, regarding its ability to get an audience into the theater.
Oppenheimer
“Oppenheimer’s poster is looks like one you’d see for an action movie. The monochromatic orange tint and sparks–along with the giant bomb–is just too much information. If you were not familiar with the real atom bomb, you would never know what it was and thus, if you did not know who Oppenheimer was, you really would have no clue what the movie was about. The photoshopping/photo bashing is awkward, specifically around Cillian’s hat, and there’s really no concept behind the design aside from “bomb, main character.” Furthermore, there is nothing that really indicated that this is a period piece. Overall, I’d say that this is not terribly successful in intriguing audiences. There is no design hierarchy, the title treatment is fairly ordinary, and it misrepresents the film itself.”
Poor Things
“Poor Things’ poster was very interesting to me. Conceptually, it’s something very different and almost appears as human-made-AI in a sense. I think that was makes it successful is that you don’t quite know what the movie is about, but it’s just weird enough to intrigue you to learn more. The only problem I have is with the type design–and most posters have a problem with title treatment. Here, it looks like the image was created and then the type was just squeezed in the corner. Type should be considered as part of the composition and design too–and in most posters, it looks like an afterthought.”
The Holdovers
“The Holdovers was one of my favorite movies this year. The film felt so authentically 1970s–as in, you were not only in a story that took place in the 70s but that the movie itself was made in the 70s. And this is why the poster was so disappointing. It feels like a spoof of a 70s poster. If you look closely, the image is actually just a photograph that someone drew an outline on, to look as if it was a painting, and the Christmas ornament is the only real “painted” thing. I don’t know why the film would be so carefully curated to feel a certain way, but then the poster was made to be a cheap knock-off of what would have actually been authentic to the period [an illustrated poster]. The type face and lock up of the title also seems out of place. It feels off balance.
Furthermore, the concept and composition is just odd–why is she holding a tray, why did they choose to show the character with a broken arm (which is not a large part of the plot), why are they looking as if they have come out of a broken ornament? And why wasn’t the negative/white space better utilized? It was, in my opinion, an insult to the film.”
"[ Movie poster design] is one of my favorite topics of discussion and it's something I feel isn’t talked about enough."
Barbie
“Though you could argue that this fits perfectly fine into the Barbie marketing campaign, I don’t think that it was creative enough to be successful. In many ways, you should be able to take the title off of a movie poster and still understand what the film is. In this case, if you were to remove ‘Barbie,’ this poster simply shows a pretty woman and a man staring at her. If you know the film, it makes a bit more sense, but there is nothing in the image that really feels inherently Barbie banded. The car indicates only slightly that it is not a movie really about the 1950s (because it looks vintage, and like a toy), but it is cropped in a way that doesn’t really even give a clue that it’s the classic Barbie convertible. The character posters from this campaign were, in my opinion, more interesting–especially because so many people were inspired to make their own versions of the poster. That audience interaction was more valuable as a marketing tool than the visuals themselves.”
American Fiction
“I do really like the concept behind this poster. It’s almost cliche–which makes sense, given the theme of the film. There is, however, debate as to whether it reads from far away. Not every poster needs to make sense from every distance, but from afar, you would think that this is just an image of a man adjusting his tie, which doesn’t say anything about the film. I wish that the text had been placed more strategically, perhaps in a way that visually connected it with the hand drawn element (i.e. outlined type). Though, I will point out that the knuckle tattoos are quite clever, as they read “thug lie” rather than “life.” This is the small hint that the audience is given, and they are then left to figure out the visual puzzle that is the poster.
The Zone of Interest
“This poster is uncomfortable to look at, and I think that was the point. The full, visually-heavy black sky is so ominous, and it’s not quite clear what is going on. If you look closely, some people are obscured by trees and other objects, making it feel as if you’re looking at this secret or intimate moment that you’re not meant to see. What I think could have been more successful is if the greenhouse and barbed-wire fence was more clear. If you were to see this poster from the other side of the street, you wouldn’t have gotten that they were perhaps set up against the border of a (concentration) camp.”
"Every now and again, one mainstream marketing campaign will come out that actually looks good and is creative, and you pay attention to it because it’s different."
Killers of the Flower Moon
“This was probably one of the least ‘successful’ posters of the bunch, because of how oddly it portrays both the story and film itself. From this poster, I would guess that this is a romantic-drama about a rancher and his wife. The actual themes of the film are not apparent in any way. I don’t understand the background at all–the textures seem quite random, the splotches and splatters don’t tie in well visually or conceptually, and the poster’s white ‘strip’ on the right side make it almost seem unfinished. I would not be intrigued to see this film based on this poster, and the other designs that were released to market the film focuses so heavily on Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro, which is odd because the film and its themes are centered upon the Osage Nation–and you would never know this by looking at the posters.”
Maestro
“This poster tells me nothing about this film, and based on the title you would not really be able to fully solve that puzzle on your own. The only thing that I can gather from this is that there’s a sweaty man in it. However, I know what the movie is about, my read of the poster is different–if you knew nothing about it, you would probably not understand that he is conducting or that it is even Bernstein.
Anatomy of a Fall
“This is one of the few movie posters from this year’s Oscar nominations that feels like it was designed with both type and image in mind. The bleak white background works in this poster, more effectively than it did in The Holdovers because of the concept behind it (snow)."
Past Lives
“This poster is hard to critique because it’s really just a face, centered. The concept is rather obvious, given the themes of the film, and it feels oddly stiff and static. I do like the subtle suggestion of someone walking past, but wonder if it would have been more effective to show her reaction to something, or someone, without showing what it is. The title treatment feels like it could have been designed more effectively as well."
Arthur Starling is a Brazilian designer and illustrator. He is currently living in Pasadena, California. Arthur's favorite movies are Back to the Future, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, and The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. You can view his work at arthurstarling.com